Structuring Physician Compensation Arrangements Meeting Legal - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Structuring Physician Compensation Arrangements

Meeting Legal Requirements, Ensuring FMV and Commercial Reasonableness, Lessons from Recent Enforcement, Mitigating Fraud and Abuse Risks

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

• speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Anna M. Grizzle, Member, Bass Berry & Sims, Nashville, Tenn. Tizgel K.S. High, Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Legal, LifePoint Health, Brentwood, Tenn. Albert D. (Chip) Hutzler, Partner, HealthCare Appraisers, Delray Beach, Fla.

Tips for Optimal Quality

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

• f your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-819-0113 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926

• ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Structuring Compliant Physician Compensation Arrangements in the Current Enforcement Environment

Tizgel High | Vice President & Associate General Counsel LifePoint Health Anna Grizzle | Member Bass Berry & Sims Albert “Chip” Hutzler, JD, MBA, CVA | Partner HealthCare Appraisers, Inc.

Presentation Overview

• 1. Analysis of recent cases and settlements highlighting the risks

associated with physician compensation arrangements

• 2. Discussion of the regulatory framework and trends for

structuring physician compensation arrangements, including applicable Stark and AKS requirements

• 3. Practical advice related to establishing and maintaining fair

market value and commercial reasonableness

• 4. Suggestions

for structuring and managing physician compensation arrangements to ensure ongoing compliance

• 5. Q&A

5

Recent Trends & Activity: Recent Cases and Settlements

6

Recent Cases & Settlements: The List Keeps Growing…

Lexington Medical Center ($17 million settlement) allegations that up to 28 physicians were overpaid based on an inherently flawed compensation structure. Columbus Regional Health Healthcare System (up to $35 million settlement) and Dr. Andrew Pippas ($425k settlement) Clinical and medical director compensation arrangements with a referring medical oncologist challenged Adventist Health – ($115 million settlement) allegations of payments in excess of FMV. Broward Health – ($69 million settlement) allegations of intentional payments for referrals tracked with secret books, absent which, transactions resulted in substantial losses Tuomey Case – ($237.5 million verdict upheld, then settled for $70 million) Hospital’s part- time employment of 19 physicians for outpatient surgeries challenged. New in 2016 - Recent settlement with former CEO Halifax Hospital – ($85 million settlement) Multiple compensation arrangements with employed oncologists and neurosurgeons challenged Citizens Medical Center – ($21.75 million settlement) Compensation arrangements with cardiology and emergency department physicians challenged Westchester Medical Center – ($18.8 million settlement) Consulting and fellowship arrangements with referring cardiologists challenged King’s Daughters Medical Center – ($40.9 million settlement) FMV of compensation arrangements with referring cardiologists challenged

7

Recent Cases & Settlements: The List Keeps Growing…

New York Heart Center

►

($1.33 million settlement) Internal compensation formula challenged (nuclear and CT scans)

All Children’s Health System

►

($7 million settlement) - clarified Stark’s relationship to Medicaid; FMV of compensation challenged

Infirmary Health System

►

($24.5 million settlement) - compliance with in-office ancillary services definition challenged

Bradford Case – November 2010 Opinion

►

Hospital paid independent physicians for use of a nuclear camera and a non-compete

United Shockwave Settlement – July 2010

►

Urologists use referral threats to win lithotripsy contract at hospital

Covenant Settlement – August 2009

►

Iowa doctors on a PCE deal allegedly overpaid – expenses questioned

Kosenske Case – Appellate Opinion - January 2009

►

FMV is hypothetical, not what actual parties can negotiate

Villafane Case – April 2008

►

FMV unsuccessfully challenged in academic medical center case in Kentucky

Derby Case – IRS case from 2008

►

IRS intangible assets case from 2008

OIG Advisory Opinions with Valuation Implications:

►

12-22 – Favorable opinion on co-management transaction

►

12-15 – Favorable opinion on call coverage arrangements

►

12-06 – Negative opinion on two ASC-Anesthesia transactions

►

10-16 – OIG questions requestor's survey method for determining FMV

►

09-09 – Footnote questions the viability of the income approach 8

Tuomey

Settlement in 2015 - $72MM, after a long, winding road… Two Long Trials 1st Trial (March 2010) found that Tuomey had violated Stark but not FCA 2nd Trial (May 2013) resulted in large verdict ($237MM) against Tuomey 1st Appellate opinion (March 2012) – two key rulings: Facility component of personally performed services are referrals. Fixed compensation that considers anticipated referrals “by necessity takes into account the volume or value of such referrals” under Stark. 2nd Appellate opinion (July 2015) Advice of Counsel defense rejected by the Court Base vs. Bonus language in employment exception questioned Court said Congress deemed services rendered in violation of Stark to be “worthless” Concurring opinion:

►

“This case is troubling. It seems as if, even for well-intentioned health care providers, the Stark Law has become a booby trap rigged with strict liability and potentially ruinous exposure -- especially when coupled with the False Claims Act.” Activity Since Settlement Settlement with former CEO – Impact of Yates Memo Malpractice lawsuit against law firm that advised hospital about the transactions

9

Citizens Medical Center

Settlement in 2015 - $22MM But before settlement, Court ruled on motion to dismiss: Key court statement:

► “Even if the cardiologists were making less than the national median salary

for their profession, the allegations that they began making substantially more money once they were employed by Citizens is sufficient to allow an inference that they were receiving improper remuneration. This inference is particularly strong given that it would make little apparent economic sense for Citizens to employ the cardiologists at a loss unless it were doing so for some ulterior motive – a motive Relators identify as a desire to induce referrals.”

The Court did not rule that the compensation was inconsistent with FMV or commercially unreasonable.

► But Court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling sufficient questions of fact

existed for a jury to decide

► Settlement of the case left those questions ultimately undecided

10

Lexington County Health Services District

Hospital agreed to pay $17 million to settle allegations that it violated the Stark Law based on improper financial arrangements with 28 physicians Allegations that the employment agreements were not commercially reasonable and compensation was above FMV Relator’s proposed employment agreement included the following terms

► 7-year “no cut” employment agreement ► Base compensation of $318,758 (above the 75th percentile for

neurologists) when historical production was at the 60th percentile

► Productivity bonus that would revalue every wRVU one productivity

crossed established threshold

11

Lexington County Health Services District

► Physician’s productivity incentive include wRVUs produced by

midlevel practitioners under the physician’s supervision

► Productivity incentive was contractually based on wRUV values

established in 2010 Medicare PFS, rather than allowing for revised wRVU values as established by CMS from time to time.

Complaint alleges that the physician earned $650,000 during first year of employment, inclusive of $40,000 signing bonus, which is more than 150% of the 90th percentile compensation for 75th percentile wRVU productivity (based on MGMA data) Complaint alleges that the physician’s compensation in private practice was $250,000

12

Columbus Regional Healthcare System Inc.

$35 million settlement to resolve former executive’s False Claims Act suits accusing the Georgia Hospital chain of overpaying referring oncologist Oncologist paid at 90th percentile under production- based formula

► Compensation originally supported by outside FMV report based

upon high production that was later determined to include another physician’s production

Medical directorship payments also not supported based upon review of time records showing physician working fewer than 5 days per week despite medical director time logs showing 60-80 hours per month

13

Establishing and Maintaining Fair Market Value and Commercial Reasonableness

14

FMV Regulatory Guidance

Stark Statute: Value in arm’s length transactions, consistent with general market value… (1877 (h)(3) of the Social Security Act) Narrower regulatory definition (42 CFR §411.351)

• Value in arm’s-length transactions, consistent with general

market value

• General market value means compensation as result of bona

fide bargaining between well informed parties not otherwise in position to generate business for other party

• Compensation does not take into account volume or value of

anticipated or actual DHS referrals

15

Special Fraud Alert – Clinical Laboratory Services (October 1994)

• Presumption: Compensation outside of FMV is in

exchange for referrals

OIG Compliance Guidance for Individual and Small Group Practices (October 2000)

• “The OIG’s definition of ‘fair market value’ excludes any

value attributable to referrals of Federal program business

• r the ability to influence the flow of business.”

FMV Regulatory Guidance

16

Focus on Fair Market Value

OIG Supplemental Guidance for Hospitals (January 2005)

• Need appropriate processes for making and

documenting reasonable, consistent, and objective determinations of FMV

• Is the determination of FMV based upon a reasonable

methodology that is uniformly applied and documented?

• If FMV based on comparables, ensure market rate for

comparable services is not distorted.

17

Commercial Reasonableness Regulatory Guidance

Stark Commentary:

• Subjective Concept (Phase I): Sensible, prudent

business agreement from the perspective of the parties

• Objective Concept (Phase II): Would make

commercial sense if entered into by a reasonable entity of similar type and size and a reasonable physician of similar scope and specialty, even if there were no potential for DHS referrals

18

Summary of Current Situation and Trends To Consider

Regulatory Uncertainty

► Substantial uncertainty still exists as to the exact meaning of FMV,

commercial reasonableness and the “volume or value” standard under Stark and Anti-Kickback;

► Uncertain whether the new Congress will change Stark definitions of FMV,

commercial reasonableness, or the volume/value standard;

► Will any changes Congress makes really eliminate the climate of

uncertainty? Will courts have any easier time understanding revised laws?

Enforcement Climate is Risky

► Qui tam actions are inexpensive to file, potentially lucrative to the relator,

and as a result, the volume of new actions remains plentiful

► Government (DOJ and OIG) continue to make sometimes conflicting

arguments to Courts about the meaning of health law to advance their recovery efforts.

► Courts continue to add to uncertainty with relative lack of understanding of

the complex health laws.

► Yates Memo impact uncertain – will it lead to more cooperation or less?

19

Valuation Uncertainty and Risks

► Reliance in good faith on a reputable independent valuation is clearly

preferred, but provides no legal presumption or official protection (under Stark or Anti-Kickback)

► Regulatory guidance clearly indicates that traditional valuation approaches

may not always be available or appropriate in valuing healthcare transactions, due to the risk of improperly considering referrals.

► Inexperienced experts (or the parties acting on their own) may use risky or

disfavored valuation methods, for example:

• Opportunity cost (what doctor could otherwise do with the same time)
• Strategic or Investment Value (what the particular parties negotiate at arms-length)

► Substantial disagreement and confusion among reputable healthcare

valuators still exists on various valuation topics:

• Practice losses, intangible assets, etc.

► Physician salary survey data is likely the best market data available, but has

key drawbacks

• Productivity data can be misleading
• Surveys lag behind as the market shifts (e.g., shift toward value-based compensation)

Summary of Current Situation and Trends To Consider (continued)

20

Practice Advice for Structuring Arrangements

21

Arrangement Review Process

Use contract management tool to manage agreements. Establish centralized contracting process for consistent review and approval of all arrangements. Develop template agreements meeting legal requirements. Confirm fair market value of arrangement.

• Consider when outside valuations will be required.
• DON’T forum shop opinions
• Choose experienced, reputable valuator.

Document appropriate business justification for arrangement.

• DON’T pay for referrals.

22

Compensation Structure Development

Simple – easily administered and physicians understand it Consistent – minimal variation driven only by sound and appropriate principles Auditable – can be regularly reviewed Compliant – Link to production, collections, need or other measure to support amount

23

Arrangement Tracking

Require periodic reevaluation of FMV and commercial reasonableness Update arrangements if change in relationship

• Compensation changes must follow centralized process.

Enforce detailed payment tracking

• NO payment without documentation.
• If the arrangement involves services, track service

and activity logs.

• If the arrangement involves space or equipment,

monitor use of leased space or equipment.

24

Hypothetical

25

Hypothetical

Hospital affiliated practice seeks to acquire in-market primary care practice

• Community shortage of primary care physicians

Compensation based on wRVU production model

• Supported by FMV
• Represents increase from historic compensation

Projected revenues show likely practice loss

• Compensation considerations
• Other considerations
• Loss mitigation strategies

Noncompete buyout required to leave current employer

• Consideration of loans to physicians

26

Questions?

Tizgel High LifePoint Health tizgel.high@LPNT.net Anna Grizzle Bass Berry & Sims agrizzle@bassberry.com Albert “Chip” Hutzler, JD, MBA, CVA HealthCare Appraisers, Inc. chutzler@hcfmv.com

27